For those that have the 16-25 when you zoom to 25mm are you able to see the green circuitboard and electrical connections near the rear element? I just received a used one on ebay and it seems strange this is exposed.
njdadphoto wrote:
For those that have the 16-25 when you zoom to 25mm are you able to see the green circuitboard and electrical connections near the rear element? I just received a used one on ebay and it seems strange this is exposed.
I only have the 16-25f2.8, but read a lot about the Tamron and the Sigma equivalents before buying my lens.
From what I've seen, it's a case where if you have a good copy of one of these lenses, I don't see the point of switching as with copy variations, even if the other lens is supposedly better, you may end up with a lens which is not that better anyway, and regret selling the other lens.
This 16-25 is good, but edge sharpness at 16mm is not visibly better than the 16-35f4PZ, and it's not like this lens suddenly has almost as sharp border as in the center at wide angle focal lengths. I'm pretty sure the Tamron 17-28 is still doing ok.
I've had the 16-35f2.8 GMII, the 16-35f4PZ and this 16-25f2.8G. I also have the 20f1.8G. I use an A7III, which is not supposed to be that demanding, and yet, I can see the differences between these lenses:
- 16-35f2.8 GMII was the sharpest at 16mm, weaker between 20mm and 24mm than the other 4 lenses
- 16-35f4 and 16-25f2.8 are about on par at equal apertures
- 20f1.8 is the sharpest of all at 20mm (especially in the corners, it's just incredibly sharp at around f4)
My take is all these zooms are pretty good, with slight differences where they're best at. They don't match a prime like the 20mm closed down, though.
I think you should get what will make you take more photos.
- The 16-35f2.8 GMII felt a bit disappointing considering its price and how relatively hefty it was compared to the PZ.
- The 16-25f2.8 is smaller, fun to use, though it doesn't have 35mm and is weaker than the GM II at 16mm (but stronger above 18mm).
- The PZ was great, but f4 and PZ which I kind of disliked. But it was super small and light.
- The 20f1.8 prime is small, light, super sharp, but it's only 20mm, and I sometimes prefer 24mm or 16mm.
Additional note: I only see differences at 150% - 200%. At 100%, they are all as amazing as I think one can hope.
Has anyone been able to compare it with the 21mm Voigtlander Color Skoppar 3.5?
I've had the Voigtlander for years and I'm wondering if it's a good idea to replace it with this Sony.
Gain in flexibility with a zoom, AF against MF, better focal aperture : 2,8 against 3,5 but but twice as heavy. But at the end what is the difference in term of image quality...?
I also have the Sony 40 2.5 and the Sigma 90 2.8 (the idea is to travel light) I also have the Tamron 28-75 V1 (which I don't really use anymore since I switched to an A7C...I could sell it with the Voigtlander to finance this 16-25mm)
Voigtlander 21 3.5 is a nice lens, I have it still in my drawer, replaced by Sony 20 1.8G.
Voigtlander advantages:
- Build quality (metal body with smooth MF ring)
-Size and weight, one of the smallest E-mount lens
-Very good sharpness up to 33MP (for 60MP there are higher resolution lenses)
-Less distorsion
-Sunstars
-Price
16-25 advantages:
-AF
-Zoom, it can replace an UWA prime and WA prime.
-Faster, however f2.8 vs. f3.5 not huge difference
-Sharper on 60MP sensor, at 24/33MP only better corner sharpness is visible.
I'd consider to replace the Voigtlander if you need AF, or/and you want go wider without changing lens.
Thank you for this feedback.
It's true that I love this Voigtlander, I don't understand why no one ever talks about it, maybe i should just have both.
The Sony really makes sense for making video, (I dare to focus on it) more than posed landscape photography..
How are people feeling about their 16-25? I've been using mine for a couple of weeks for snapshots and travel. Not sure if it's a case of First World problems, but.. it has by all means done a decent job (aside from being shorter than I'd like for snapshots, but that's more lack of user judgment). I bought it quite logically to replace the Viltrox 16/1.8 and Sony 24/1.4 in my camera bags and it produces perfectly fine images, but somehow on an emotional level it doesn't excite me as much as either lens. The Viltrox is bulky and a drag to carry as I don't always (or often) need 16mm or at 1.8, but when I do I love the images with edge-to-edge sharpness near zero distortion. The Sony is one I'd used much less of in recent years as I've gravitated more towards 20mm, but for general use from 20mm I already have a 20-70 with a very decent wide end and indeed also a Viltrox 20/2.8 which is simply fantastic and produces equally good if not better images than the 16-25.
I am sorry to bring back an old thread. I figured since it’s been a while, more opinions are around especially compared to 16-35pz and GMs for landscape photography. I need to fill my ultra wide end range of 16-20ish because 24mm and above will be covered by 24-70GM2
The Tamron 17-28 still feels like the best value for landscape stills. If Sony had offered something wider like 15-25 or 14-24 f/4 that accepted threaded filters, I probably would have gone that way. But 16 versus 17mm doesn't make a difference to me. If you need the Fn button and aperture ring, then the Sony makes sense. I like the external simplicity and internal(-ish) zoom barrel on the Tamron. Optically, there's nothing to complain about.
jeffbuzz wrote:
But 16 versus 17mm doesn't make a difference to me.
Keep in mind the 16-25G at the wide end is noticeably wider than the 16-35GM2 at 16mm, so I imagine the difference with the Tamron 17-28 might be even more significant. See Dan Watson's comment on the wide end FOV in his excellent comparison video:
?si=_bQPB316xd0vu_PS&t=274
chrisd999 wrote:
Keep in mind the 16-25G at the wide end is noticeably wider than the 16-35GM2 at 16mm, so I imagine the difference with the Tamron 17-28 might be even more significant. See Dan Watson's comment on the wide end FOV in his excellent comparison video:
?si=_bQPB316xd0vu_PS&t=274
The Sony shows extreme barrel distortion at its wide end. How you correct for that is going to effect the perceived FoV. Subject distance will also change FoV given the amount of focus breathing. The Tamron is almost entirely optically corrected so what you see is actually what you get in raw.
jeffbuzz wrote:
The Sony shows extreme barrel distortion at its wide end. How you correct for that is going to effect the perceived FoV. Subject distance will also change FoV given the amount of focus breathing. The Tamron is almost entirely optically corrected so what you see is actually what you get in raw.
You are correct, the 16-25 has a decent amount of barrel distortion at 16mm, which can be corrected in camera or in post. However, as the Dan Watson video demonstrates, the distortion-corrected 16mm image from the 16mm end of the 16-25 matches the same FOV as the uncorrected 16mm image from the 16-35 GM2, which also has some barrel distortion (albeit a lesser amount).
For some types of subjects (anything with buildings or straight lines) I will definitely correct the distortion, but for some landscape images, which is one of my primary use cases for the 16-25, I will often leave the distortion uncorrected if I want the extra FOV it provides.
TLDR: The 16-25G has a significantly wider FOV at 16mm compared to the 16-35 GM2.
